Seen this gem yet?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-12-2011, 07:00 PM
Seen this gem yet?
Enjoy Smile

http://bit.ly/uVOzsu

Discuss?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2011, 07:09 PM
RE: Seen this gem yet?
(22-12-2011 07:00 PM)scientician Wrote:  Enjoy Smile

http://bit.ly/uVOzsu

Discuss?

After a quick read I'd say Terror Management certainly has the ring of truth to it. I will read the paper in depth.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2011, 09:36 PM
RE: Seen this gem yet?
(22-12-2011 07:00 PM)scientician Wrote:  Enjoy Smile

http://bit.ly/uVOzsu

Discuss?

Personally, I think they should rename "Intelligent Design Theory" to "Intelligent Design In Ongoing Theory" !

I have stated loudly many times that in my opinion, this crap has no place in our schools! Teaching this garbage to growing minds is but yet another chapter in the "Dumbing Down of America". Religion is a great way to get people to follow you without any thought about the matter. Simple common sense goes out the window when religion comes in through the door. No doubt the politicians allowed this educational tragedy in the listed states to draw votes. It seems these days that politicians will say & do ANYTHING to get into office, or stay there.

I don't know that much about our legal system, or exactly where boundaries lie, but it seems to me that separation of church and state definitely be applied here. Why say that we are schooling our kids if we're just going to teach them lies?

Isn't the education level of this country down far enough, considering that we are supposed to be the greatest nation on Earth? Why make it worse?

Not far from where I live, there is one town in particular that seems to have a LOT of kids being "home schooled", because the parents (mostly baptists) don't want their children taught "the lies of modern science".

I pity these kids when they grow up, because they will not have the skills that they will need to survive in a digital world. Our schools really need to pick up the pace when it comes to teaching sciences, and/or computer sciences. Just skimming the very basics won't cut it in tomorrow's world!

Oxymoron: "Religious teaching"
"Simple common sense goes out the window when religion comes in through the door." Me (Blasphemy Fan )
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes blasphemy fan's post
23-12-2011, 01:37 AM
RE: Seen this gem yet?
(22-12-2011 07:00 PM)scientician Wrote:  Enjoy Smile

http://bit.ly/uVOzsu

Discuss?

That's hilarious!

I hear that telling kids that they're wealthy, good-looking, and smart is great for their self-esteem. But perhaps there's also something beneficial to giving them the truth... but what do I know? I'm not a Christian scientist.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2011, 04:09 AM
RE: Seen this gem yet?
Christian scientist, what a blast...

Smile

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2011, 12:13 PM
RE: Seen this gem yet?
Oh this is just wonderful news. -.-

This is just stupid shit (yeah I read it all), why exactly are they calling it a theory for? Maybe I'm mistaken, if so correct me please, but isn't a hypothesis promoted to a theory only after passing all the tests?

Reason I ask this is because it is called IDT. Would it be better called IDH? I know it's just fake crap, but if they are gonna go with some sort of scientific labeling I suppose they may need to fix it. Just saying!

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Clint Barnett's post
23-12-2011, 12:39 PM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2011 12:44 PM by kim.)
RE: Seen this gem yet?
(23-12-2011 12:13 PM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  This is just stupid shit (yeah I read it all), why exactly are they calling it a theory for? Maybe I'm mistaken, if so correct me please, but isn't a hypothesis promoted to a theory only after passing all the tests?

Reason I ask this is because it is called IDT. Would it be better called IDH? I know it's just fake crap, but if they are gonna go with some sort of scientific labeling I suppose they may need to fix it. Just saying!

I agree; a reputable school board needs to correctly instruct educators in exactly what constitutes a Theory as opposed to what makes up an hypothesis, and how both relate to one another. And make darn sure they instruct pupils in a similar manner when it comes to science classes.
_____

If a school board does not feel comfortable excluding this "theory of intelligent design" from the curriculum, add it to an introductory course in philosophy, where all manner of creation theories are brought up and discussed.

Smile I feel it is essential to discuss anything and everything in schools, as long as children are taught how to think and not what to think.

(22-12-2011 09:36 PM)blasphemy fan Wrote:  "Intelligent Design In Ongoing Theory" !

That is fantastic! Big Grin

Dodgy wish I'd thought of it... now, I must find a way to use it.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
23-12-2011, 01:45 PM
Are we reading the same paper?
This paper is not pushing ID or dissing evolution.
Quote:The present research examined the psychological motives underlying widespread support for intelligent design theory (IDT), a purportedly scientific theory that lacks any scientific evidence; and antagonism toward evolutionary theory (ET), a theory supported by a large body of scientific evidence. We tested whether these attitudes are influenced by IDT's provision of an explanation of life's origins that better addresses existential concerns than ET.

They are investigating why some people seem to be psychologically drawn to ID and/or hostile to evolution.

Quote:In sum, although religious ideology plays a large role in public support for IDT and antagonism toward ET, these attitudes, held by both religious and non-religious individuals, can be partly explained by IDT's potential for assuaging existential anxiety, and ET's apparent lack of an existentially compelling solution to life's origins.

Seems a reasonable study to me. I have thought for some time that the very idea of evolution is scary or repugnant to people, so they won't even consider the evidence. ID gives them (in their minds) a way out without having to call themselves creationists.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: